Gurjant Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.—Gurjant Singh along with his wife Surjit Kaur, son Harpal Singh and daughter Jasbir Kaur have come in this revision against the order dated September 23, 1989 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, charging the petitioners for offence under Sections 406 and 498A IPC.

The brief facts which may be necessary for decision of the revision are that on June 8, 1988 Gurdeep Kaur, who is the daughter-in-law of Gurjant Singh, moved an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, with the following allegations.

Gurdeep Kaur was married to Iqbal Singh son of Gurjant Singh, who was serving as a Clerk in the office of Horticulture Development Officer, Bathinda. At the time of her marriage, she was given dowry inclusive of thirty tolas of gold, jeep, fridge, T.V., sofa set, dinning set, almirahs, large box and other clothes. Iqbal Singh died in a bus accident on August 1, 1986. On October 19, 1986, re-marriage of Gurdeep Kaur was performed with Harpal Singh, the younger brother of Iqbal Singh. Subsequently, however, the attitude of Gurjant Singh and his wife changed towards her and they started making remarks against Gurdeep Kaur alleging that she had "eaten up their son". Even Harpal Singh was influenced by his parents and he also changed his attitude towards her. For ten months, from the period from 3.7.87 to 19.5.88, she remained absent from her service so that the family atmosphere may be congenial. However, during this period, she was made to do meanial jobs. During this period, an affidavit was got signed from her by Gurjant Singh and his wife on the pretext that Surjit Kaur was to get pension from the government. She, however, discovered that Gurjant Singh has not only disposed of the jeep, plot and land belonging to her deceased husband Iqbal Singh, but also taken away the gold from her, which they had originally given to her. Having received a communication from her office directing her to resume duty or she was likely to lose her job, she sought permission of her father-in-law and mother-in-law to permit her to join duty and he was told that in case she was bent upon to join service, she should leave the house and not to return again. They also insisted that she should resign the job. She, returned to the job on May 25, 1988 Gurjant Singh is keeping his muscle-men and as such she returns to her parents house from the place of her duty.

One day, while she was going on the Power House Road she was stopped and the Nihang, who is kept by Gurjant Singh, showed her a pistol and threatened to kidnap and kill her. That Gurjant Singh also indulged in other nefarious activities and had also been involved in a case u/s 420 and a prayer was made by her that the gun and pistol of Gurjant Singh may be confiscated and the undesirable persons being kept by him may be arrested and the property belonging to Gurdeep Kaur which had been misappropriated by Gurjant Singh may be got returned to her.

This application was made over to S.H.O. Kotwali, who conducted preliminary investigation. The petitioners state that on the basis of the inquiry held, the SHO found the allegations to be incorrect and reported that the only dispute related to the service being carried on by Gurdeep Kaur which Gurjant Singh and Ors. did not want her to retain.

On July 28, 1988, the police recorded an FIR No. 198 on the basis of a second application made by Gurdeep Kaur and addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. Further allegations of entrustment of the dowry articles to Iqbal Singh and Gurjant Singh, at the time of marriage, were made and the allegations were also made against Gurjant Singh, Surjit Kaur, Harpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur for their making demands of dowry and illtreatment. On the basis of this FIR, the challan was put in Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges on August 23, 1989 against all the petitioners.

There is force in the contention of Mr. J.S. Mann, Counsel for the petitioner, that it was the first application dated June 8, 1988 which could be treated to form the FIR and infact the police did take cognizance on the basis of this report and subsequent statement made by Gurdeep Kaur to the police in the form of an application dated July 28, 1988, would amount to a statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. The learned Assistant Advocate General has not been able to contradict this legal proposition. While reading the two documents, one fact has to be borne in mind that Gurdeep Kaur is a literate lady, who was working as a Clerk in the office of Horticulture Development Officer since prior to the year 1987. She must have given all the necessary facts in her application dated June 8, 1988. In that application, there were no allegations of any criminal offence committed by the petitioners, other than Gurjant Singh. The mis-appropriation of the articles was attributed to Gurjant Singh alone. Gurdeep Kaur had lost her first husband Iqbal Singh and as is customary in some of the tribes in Punjab, her remarriage was performed with her husband''s younger brother, Harpal Singh. This marriage appears to have not been a success and the complainant Gurdeep Kaur found it necessary to keep her service intact, in preference to her marriage with Harpal Singh. The entire tenor of the version in the application dated June 8, 1988 shows her grievance against Gurjant Singh who was probably keeping some of the articles belonging to Gurdeep Kaur; whether the relation articles if any, was with a dishonest intention, or as a pressure tactic to force. Gurdeep Kaur to return to her matrimonial home, is a matter of evidence Gurdeep Kaur having failed to prevail upon Gurjant Singh to return these articles, has coined a version to implicate each and every member of the family by getting FIR No. 198 registered. She had in all probability, during the period June 8, 1988 to July 28, 1988, got some Counsel advising her of setting forth a new version so as to implicate each and every member of the family.

The only grievance complained of in the application dated June 8, 1988 was of misappropriation committed by Gurjant Singh. In the presence of the application dated June 8, 1988, on which police had moved inton action, no FIR on the basis of an application dated July 28, 1988 could be registered. The prosecution of Surjit Kaur, Harpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur on the basis of this FIR is for oblique motive and its continuation will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is a case where powers u/s 482 Cr. P.C. must be invoked to save these petitioners from suffering the harassment of such a litigation. Exercising these powers, I hereby quash the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, including the charge, against Surjit Kaur, Harpal Singh and Jasbir Kaur, petitioners.

So far as Gurjant Singh is concerned, the application dated June 8, 1988 definitely makes out a case of criminal misappropriation punishable u/s 403 I.P.C. The charges under Sections 406 and 498A against Gurjant Singh are hereby quashed and a direction is issued to the Magistrate to re-frame the charge in the light of the above discussion. The revision petition of Gurjant Singh is allowed in the aforesaid terms.